SHOULD MARRIED COUPLES GET PREFERENCE IN ADOPTION?: Lee

We do indeed disagree about a lot of the surrounding facts! Yes, in the 1970s (!), the National Association of Black Social Workers did adopt a stance against transracial adoptions, but legislative changes, and growing understanding about transracial adoptions, has lowered the barriers to such adoptions; the main problem today is the lack of parents to adopt these children -- which is why adoption agencies often charge lower fees to place African-American babies.

Indeed, international transracial adoption is quite common -- no disagreement there.

Perceptions are just that--perceptions. People have plenty of (mis)perceptions about international adoption as well. Some states provide birthmothers with a lot of time to change their minds, but there are many other states where such adoptions are finalized quickly. Parents seeking domestically adopted infants quite often know what states place them on the best legal ground. I think this is a particularly difficult issue. No one should want a system where a birthmom (and perhaps birthfather) are coerced into surrendering a child that she/they could raise. Likewise, a system that gives a birthmother an inordinate amount of time to change her mind (1 year, for example) is grossly unfair to the child and to adoptive
parents.

The bigger problem is how our public adoption system works. The system places a premium on reunification with the birth family, if at all possible. Proceedings to terminate parental rights and render a child eligible for adoption are extremely time-consuming and the system is woefully underfunded, leading to large backlogs of cases.

I didn't say that singles and gay people step up to the plate more than married heterosexuals, but without these two groups adopting, there would be far greater numbers of kids without families and permanent homes.

Social workers believe in family diversity, perhaps, but those working to place children for adoption do not have that as their raison d'etre. Their foremost goal is to find a loving home for children in need of one. You're creating a bogeyman out of social workers and it's not fair -- certainly not fair to children who need a home. The family diversity belief, if it comes out at all, centers on the homestudy that all adoptive parents must have done. Social workers today recognize that loving families come in many forms: single parents, same-sex couples, differently abled parents, and older parents. This development has served children waiting for a home quite well.

Maggie, there is no legal, and certainly no moral, obligation to prefer married parents in adoptions. The system overall has a bias in favor of such parents already, I would argue, in terms of the hoops that those in unmarried families have to go through in order to adopt in the first place.

The best interest of the child demands finding a permanent, loving home for that child as expeditiously as possible. In the public system, placements are based on how well the parents can match up to the needs of the child, which often are quite many. In private placements, most birthmoms will seek a mom AND a dad of their own accord. In international adoptions, the laws of a particular country (some of whom will let only married couples adopt) govern who can adopt.

If you're talking about a preference for married couples, the system already works quite well, save for the odd sensationalist case that you can find. If you care about the kids, and I know that you do, get them a loving home as quickly as possible, regardless of marital status (and sexual orientation).
posted by Eve at 1:54 AM | link

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home